Samuel Lewis v. Warden Eagleton, No. 10-6396 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6396 SAMUEL J. LEWIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WARDEN EAGLETON, Individual and official capacities; WARDEN CHAVIS, Associate Warden, Individual and official capacities; MS. WEATHERFORD, Individual and official capacities; MR. SPIRES, Individual and official capacities; LIEUTENANT HIPP, Individual and official capacities; MS. HAGE, Nurse Supervisor, Individual and official capacities; OFFICER CYPRESS; OFFICER MATTHEWS, Individual and official capacities; ECI MEDICAL STAFF, Individual and official capacities, Defendants Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:08-cv-02800-GRA) Submitted: November 10, 2010 Decided: December 9, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel J. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Lawrence S. Kerr, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. Lewis also appeals the magistrate judge s denials of his motions to appoint counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error the in denial of the motions Accordingly, we affirm those orders. to appoint counsel. Lewis v. Eagleton, No. 4:08-cv-02800-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2009; Mar. 9, 2009). Turning to the district court s order denying § 1983 relief, the court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate advised Lewis judge recommended that that failure file to relief be timely denied and and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived of appellate review by 3 failing to file Lewis specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.